Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1658; 2000(4)ALT83(SC); JT2000(8)SC1; (2000)3MLJ192(SC); (2000)126PLR502; 2000(5)SCALE186; (2000)6SCC402; [2000]Supp1SCR524
Shivaraj v. Patil, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 2 to 5 in both the courts below in a suit for specific performance are the appellants herein. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit No. 241/71. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this appeal are : The plaintiff filed the original suit in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore for specific performance of the contract and other reliefs. According to the plaintiff, the suit scheduled property belonged to the defendant No. 1. He is carrying on business in hardware in the premises Door No. 39, Long Bazar, Vellore, the property belonging to the brother of the first defendant. He is in exclusive occupation and possession of the suit property Door No. 36 as a tenant of the first defendant from about 1962 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 using it as godown for his business purpose. The defendants 2-4 and the husband of the 5th defendant are also hardware merchants carrying on similar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC656
B.N. Kirpal and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant had appointed the respondent as a Naib Tahsildar on temporary basis. The respondent was required to pass the departmental examination. Though the appointment was made on 8-10-1973 the respondent could not pass the examination and on 26-4-1976 his probation was extended for a period of one year. When the respondent still did not pass the examination, a show-cause notice was issued to him as to why his services should not be terminated.3. This show-cause notice was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court. On 9-10-1996 the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was granted nine years' time to clear the departmental examination but he had failed to do so. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of discharge which had been passed against the respondent in terms of Rule 22(1)(c). In appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2602; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)398; 2000CriLJ3490; JT2000(8)SC184; 2000(II)OLR(SC)281; 2000(5)SCALE157; (2000)6SCC671; [2000]Supp1SCR507; 2000(2)LC1234(SC)
M.B. Sethi, J.1. Ms. Rakhi, a young girl of about 20 years of age was working as teacher in Zila Parishad Primary School at Banegaon, Maharashtra at a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. The appellant No. 1 was the Headmaster and appellant No. 2 was a co-teacher in the same school. On one unfortunate morning of Saturday, the 9th of July, 1994 Ms, Rakhi went to her school in the morning as usual. When the school was closed at about 120 Clock in the afternoon and all students had gone back to their homes, the appellants came in the room where Rakhi was sitting and closed the door and windows of the room. She was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellants and her wailing cries did not have any effect upon them. She was thus subjected to gang-rape by the appellants. After the incident Ms. Rakhi went to her house and narrated the incident to her mother Padmabai, brother Prakash and uncle Balasaheb alias Balaji. The incident was also narrated to the father of the prosecutrix who cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)8SCC565
B.N. Kirpal and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the name of Respondent 1(f) be deleted. The same is allowed at the risk of the petitioner.3. The respondent deceased Puttappa had filed a suit OS No. 243 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif, Kadur for declaration of title and injunction or in the alternative for possession of the suit land. This suit was filed against Basappa, who was Puttappa's brother-in-law.4. Basappa, who is represented by his legal representatives who are the appellants in this appeal, in his written statement denied the title of Puttappa. His case was that Puttappa was only an ostensible owner and Basappa was the real owner. It was further contended in the written statement that Basappa had been in possession openly, continuously and adversely to the knowledge of Puttappa right from 1962 and as such he had perfected the title by adverse possession.5. The trial court by judgment dated 29-10-1980 decreed the suit holding that Putt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2610; JT2000(7)SC610; (2000)3MLJ140(SC); 2000(5)SCALE145; (2000)6SCC1; [2000]Supp1SCR494
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the appointment of the Madathipathi of Shiva Kanchi Udasi Math, Kanchipuram. The parties or through whom they claim have been litigating for the last more than four decades.2. The Math in question was founded by one Yogadhlana, Mahant Bavaji under an Instrument dated 29th January, 1870. The executant of this document described himself as the disciple of Bavaji Niranjan Dass and executed the document in favour of Gurusarandass Bavaji describing him as his chief disciple. This document not only establishes the foundation of the Math but also provides for the mode of devolution of its headship. The outgoing head could nominate his disciple to be the next head. The mode of devolution thus is from Guru to disciple (Sishya Parambarais). Gurusarana Dass Bavaji later succeeded as Madathipathi (hereinafter referred to as 'head'). Gurusarana Dass Bavaji was succeeded by Narayana Dass Bavaji as head under the will dated 2nd September, 190...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2616; JT2000(7)SC622; 2000(5)SCALE153; (2000)6SCC415; [2000]Supp1SCR487; 2000(2)LC1208(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred by the Chandigarh Housing Board against the Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1469 of 1997 dated 29-4-1999.3. A commercial plot was allotted to the husband of the respondent on 4-4-1979 by the Notified Area Committee, Union Territory of Chandigarh, on free-hold basis in the Motor Market and Commercial Complex at Manimajra, by the appellant.4. Para 8(a) of the said allotment order stated that the allottee should complete the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan which shall be according to the control sheets prepared by the Chief Architect and Secretary of the Board. Thereafter, the Administrator issued a letter on 9-7-93 to the respondent's husband that the procedure relating to preparation of Architectural Control Sheets for Shop-Flats are applicable for Motor Shops also and that in these cases the said procedure of Architectural Control permits the construction of shops on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(127)ELT323(SC); (2002)9SCC674
S.P. Bharucha and; Ruma Pal, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. The order of the Tribunal under challenge is made in view of earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The learned Additional Solicitor-General is unable to state whether any special leave petitions/appeals were filed therefrom. We see, in the circumstances, no good reason to adjourn this appeal to enable the appellants to do what they should have done in the first place.3. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC578
B.N. Kirpal and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel at length. We do not agree with the contention that Rule 6(39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules is bad in law. The said Rule was in existence at the time when the licence was granted to the petitioners and the High Court has rightly observed that the petitioners cannot be allowed to impugn the same. In any event, we do not find any infirmity in the said Rule which states that the licensee shall be bound by all the rules which have been passed under the Abkari Act and which may hereafter be made under the Act or in any law relating to abkari revenue which may hereafter be made. We do not agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the decision of this Court in Food Corpn. of India v. State of Haryana1 supports his contention. In that case this Court had held that the law declared by the High Court had been accepted by the State of Haryana and, therefore, it could not impose any sales...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2346; I(2006)BC428(SC); [2000]102CompCas66(SC); JT2000(7)SC524; (2000)126PLR369; 2000(5)SCALE138; (2000)6SCC69; [2000]Supp1SCR474
M.B. Shah, J.1. These appeals are filed against the Judgment and order dated 11-8-1998 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in G.A. No. 344 of 1988 in Appeal (ACO) No. 16 of 1998 whereby the sale of the assets and properties of the Tirupati Woollen Mills Limited ('Tirupati Mills' for short) (under liquidation) confirmed on July 2, 1998 in favour of the appellant-Divya . ('Jay' for short) herein.2. In 1972, Tirupati Mills' was incorporated to manufacture Carpet yarn at Sonepat (Haryana). On 30-5-88, a financial institution filed a reference to the BIFR and it was declared as sick industrial company. On 27-1-1994, BIFR proposed winding up of the Company. On 21-4-95, the High Court of Calcutta ordered winding up of the company and directed official liquidator to take charge of the company. On 5-7-1997, Tirupati Woollen Mills Shramik Sangharsha Samity ('Samity' for short)-respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement with appellant-Divya whereby 'Divya' agreed to run Tir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(4)SCALE333a
ORDER1. While this Court has been monitoring the case for taking effective steps to save the population of Tigers from extinction and to curb the menace of poaching, our attention has been drawn to a recent tragedy in which 12 Tigers are reported to have died in the Zoo at Nandan Kanan (State of Orissa). That is a matter of concern. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General submits, on instructions, that the Central Government is seized of this position and has already deputed a high powered team to Nandan Kanan. The team is expected to submit the report by the 15th of this month.2. We may have to consider the larger issue of protection of Tiger population, not only in the Forests but also in the Zoos where they are in captive custody. The examination of the report of the Team deputed by the Central Government to Nandan Kanan, in that case would have a great bearing. We, accordingly, adjourn the matter by three weeks. Copy of the report and the ATRs. based thereon, shall be...
Tag this Judgment!